- From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:08:13 +0000
Smylers wrote: > Martin McEvoy writes: > > >> Ian Hickson wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: >>> >>> >>>> (I am not criticizing just trying to understand it) surely all it >>>> needed was to define some rev values (the same as rel) and people >>>> will start using rev correctly? >>>> >>>> >>> That's backwards -- looking for a problem to fit the solution, not >>> looking for a solution to fit the problem >>> >> No not really because If you look at the anyalasis(link above) made in >> 2005 rev=made (9th) is used more than, rel start, search, help, top, >> up, author and a whole lot of other link relationships that have made >> their way into HTML5, It doesn't make any sense? >> > > There's a difference between adding an attribute and adding to the set > of values defined for an attribute; given rel's existence, the cost of > adding start, up, etc is quite possibly less than of adding rev. > OK that makes sense, what cost is there of using rev and defining a few rev link types? > There's also the misuse to consider. If, say, rel=up is barely used but > when it is used it's generally used correctly then it's benign, and not > causing any harm. Significant rev misuse has been identified; its > existence is confusing people into writing something they don't mean. > This is the bit that I find so very wrong the most popular rev value is rev-made which is used correctly most of the time, Authors Misuse <br> all the time, the same goes for <address> based on the statement above HTML5 should drop those too? > Smylers > Thanks -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 02:08:13 UTC